This will be the new home for questions and responses addressed to (me and) John Polkinghorne.
As before, if you email nb_"at"_sciteb.com a question with Q4JCP in the subject I'll look at it and if it seems sensible respond. I aim then to send most of them to John to see if he has something to add, but have got rather behind on this. Your question (edited, including removing personal information) and the responses will then be posted here.

Sunday, 10 August 2014

I’m a physics researcher at the University of XX and have been following the science religion discussion for fifteen years. So great thanks to John for his work on the subject!
Your site also seems armed with quite a good understanding the Q&A section covers a lot in a concise and thoughtful manner.

I have a question that has been on the back of my mind for some time now: Can we really claim that there are religious explanations to things that are not attainable to science? I mean, science in itself basically tries to explain everything. I have read several works on the subject, but have not found any reasons why science in principle could not touch on meaning and purpose etc.
As science is not too well defined (what is science and what is not, problem of demarcation) and religion as well is not too well defined either, its hard to see any principled reasons as to why they could not overlap, even completely.

So, at some point, if and when science will try to touch on something Christianity also clearly explains (like meaning, purpose and morals), I think we should not surrender that area to science but in fact claim that we have a better explanation than the scientific one.
To put it more clearly, at which point do we make a stand against attempted materialist explanations as they will try to progress and cover all of life and experience? If we make a stand, and because current science accepts only materialist explanations, should we change science to accept non-materialist explanations, or should we claim that this, admittedly religious explanation, is a better explanation than the scientific one, and the scientific explanation should be abandoned?
Science doesn’t try to explain everything. It focuses on questions that are tractable using the scientific method, with experiment and mathematical formulation.

Of course Science can “touch on” almost everything because almost any question of interest has some adjacent questions which could legitimately be considered scientific. So you could do a scientific study of the prevalence and diffusion of beliefs about values (say) or about genetic or neurological factors that were associated with such beliefs, or the mechanisms by which such beliefs were held. But these could not tell you whether the beliefs were morally or philosophically valid unless you had some additional premises which were by definition extra-scientific.

In particular science by definition cannot explain why the scientific method should work so well in our universe. Almost everyone agrees that the (region of the) universe in which we live is exquisitely fine-tuned for life. This leads to fascinating scientific questions (such as my MaxHELP hypothesis) but whether this is God’s creation or some cosmic fluke is not a scientific question.

I saw online that scientists have found an 'off switch' for consciousness in the brain and some of my materialistic-minded friends claim this is proof that there is no soul (that all that makes mind/consciousness is entirely in the brain and permanently gone after death). Does the discovery support that or are they making a logical leap?
Haven’t seen this report but we all know there is an “off switch” if you hit someone on the head hard enough so I don’t see what difference it would make if there were other such “switches”.
Yeah it's fairly new. Basically they were trying to cure a woman of epilepsy by placing electrode in her brain. One of them inadvertently gave them the ability to turn her consciousness on and off. I kinda felt the same way you said in your reply--but I am always second guessing myself (wondering if I am pre-biased as a Christian and such, I want to be fair to all sides not just my own). In the end I kinda felt that this doesn't prove consciousness is trapped in the brain (a potential alternate explanation to me seems that this off switch was just temporarily breaking the soul's/consciousness' connection to the body - granted this view can't be laboratory tested). I just wanted to run it by someone else to make sure I wasn't hastily jumping to a conclusion based on pre-bias :-).

On an unrelated note, who do you and John consider solid sources for information on the historical study of Jesus? I started looking up some stuff and it seems like there is a lot of mine fields out there with different people with axes to grind. From what I've seen some stuff is generally agreed on (Jesus was crucified, his followers claimed his resurrection pretty quickly, roughly half of Paul's letters are guaranteed to be by him) but the rest seems hard to discern since everyone claims to be only following the facts despite their position...
My son-in-law is a global expert in this general area (electrodes in brains etc..) and a strong Christian. Of course the relationship between the soul and the body is quite elusive and hard to pin down.

Christians are not committed to the idea of an “immaterial soul” which is a position of Greek philosophy and very un-Jewish. We believe that we will be resurrected into new bodies and that Jesus is “the first fruits of those who sleep”. I’m fond of the analogy of a piano and the music it plays. If you smash the piano the music stops but it can always be played on another piano. A great piano piece (say the Waldstein Sonata) clearly exists, even though it requires a piano to play it. And studying the physics and chemistry of a Steinway, whilst very interesting, will only give very limited insights into the music of Beethoven.

Tom Wright is the best person on pretty much all the NT stuff. He says that the Pauline letters are probably all genuine.

With the recent discovery involving the Big Bang/Inflation I read that at least some scientists say it's almost impossible for there to not be multiple universes now. What's your guys' take on the recent discoveries and does it impact the anthropic principle at all?

On the BioLogos forum Physicist Gerald Cleaver wrote an article explaining the 10+1 expanded view of string theory (especially in Part 5 of that series). In Part 5, he seems to make the case that String Theory is all but proven which means multiple universes are all but proven. Is this a widely shared view? What is your guys' take on it? Does this have any potential implications for the anthropic principle?
The observations certainly strengthen the case for some kind of inflation but although almost all cosmologists accept the idea of inflation now there are still enough loose ends that I suspect the Nobel Committee will want more actual evidence. There could be many other ways in which these observations could have come about. And there are plenty of un-answered questions about how and why inflation was turned on and off.

As for String Theory being “all but proven” that’s only true in the sense that it isn’t proven at all. There is plenty of deep mathematics in string theory but the question is whether it corresponds to physical reality or whether it’s some kind of shadow-play as it were.
Inflation doesn’t abolish the fine-tuning problem at all - chaotic inflation might but that’s a different story.

I'm 25 years old and not much of a scientist but recently I've been coming across more and more people connecting God and conciousness together. The points they make are usually along the lines of "if scientists find out how conciousness works, then it proves God doesn't exist" - because, they say, conciousness is the last God of the Gaps.

I was wondering if either of you, being scientists, agree that conciousness is the last God of the Gaps. I don't think so, simply because if God created all things natural, I think it would be wasteful to not use the natural things he'd created and I don't think it disrupts the idea of a brain connecting with spirit. Do you believe there is a strong link between the human brain and God?

Another thing I've come across is a split view where one side say lots of scientists believe in a personal, loving God and then others sayings practically no scientists believe in God. Being closer to the field of science, how do you feel the idea of any deity sits with the majority of scientists today?
The idea that “if scientists find out how X works it proves God doesn’t exist” is so obviously false that you only have to state it to see that it is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying “if scientists don’t know how X works it proves God does exist”.

To find out how X works, scientifically, means to show that it is the consequence of certain scientific laws which we have good reason to believe are true, or at least good approximations, in our (region of the) universe. Theists say God, as the Creator of the Universe, made whatever fundamental laws these laws derive from. Materialists say the fundamental laws just happen to be the case. Science obviously, can never settle this question, which is philosophical.

Most scientists at present tend to be materialists, though by no means all. Surveys suggest that academics in Western universities are less religious than the general population, with scientists being rather more religious than “arts” academics. This probably has something to do with temperament and maybe that academics tend to be more male and more left-brain dominant. It says nothing about the truth of a belief whether or not it is fashionable.

What do you think about regarding science and religion as follows? Thus, religion is an a priori logical structure with the following three features: 1) It is applicable in any possible world that runs by law-bound causal power, and 2) It is centrally concerned with what objects in such worlds should do to survive, and 3) It has empty place-holders that can be filled in with empirical information about our world, or whichever particular world we choose to be concerned with. And science is an effort to fill in the said empty place-holders with empirical information.
I appreciate that, at first sight, these pictures of what science and religion are might seem contra-intuitive. But I have worked it all out in fairly considerable detail. Would you perhaps think that my idea is worth looking into?
Religion is about relationships with God and others.
The logical bits are theology.

I am sincerely interested in trying to reconcile the anti-creation mindset that is embedded in the beliefs held by physicists in the form of The Conservation of Energy Law that rules out an Almighty creator. With in depth exposure to both the physics and theological beliefs regarding creation your response to my concern should be revealing. I am trying to understand how people who believe in the Nicene and or Apostles Creed can also believe in the Conservation of Energy Law that rules out an Almighty creator?
Obviously if there is an Ultimate Creator then He created the laws of physics, and is not subject to them.
There is an interesting line of thought which suggests that the net energy of the universe is zero, with the matter energy being balanced out by the expansion – and this is used to suggest that the universe could have emerged without a Creator. But both of these miss the point: the Creator is (as Creator) more like the author of a novel than a character in it.
And of course atheists* have no explanation as to why the particular laws of physics should apply to the real universe which is a big problem since whilst an Ultimate Creator is by definition self-existent (if one exists at all) the law of physics are self-evidently contingent and could have been created.
* Unless they follow Max Tegmark and believe that all logically possible universes (with all logically possible physical laws) exist.

I am an evangelical Christian in the middle of reading your book “Belief of God in an age of science”. To put in mild terms - I am thoroughly enjoying it. Thank you so much for writing it. Beautiful.

I was also thinking of the possibility of a connection between quantum physics and our daily prayer. Also can the transfiguration account being classified as a atemporal event? Thoughts to ponder.

Additionally can all human knowledge be broken down to Truth vs Falsehood meaning a Yes or No classification ...this would tie into a neat dichotomy between good vs evil...
Thank you. You might also want to look at Questions of Truth.

Everything is connected at a metaphorical and metaphysical level. And dynamical systems theory – rather than quantum physics per se – helps us understand that significant effects can follow when many actors in a system align their actions and intentions, since this is a major purpose of prayer in trying to align our will to God’s. I think it is John Lucas who says that one great thing about petitionary prayer is that it forces us to think about what we really want and whether we ought to be wanting it.

The Transfiguration is not so much "atemporal" as an event when time touches eternity in an even deeper sense.

In respect of your final question: Certainly not! Almost everything important has to be expressed in some form of paradox. This is one reason why there are two creation accounts in Genesis, which differ in detail, and why the 2 genealogies of Jesus are different.

I feel I'm losing my faith. It's upsetting, not because when I die I might just cease to be but because I don't feel Him here anymore but I used to all the time. God was undeniable to me, I was confident in my faith and felt his love. How does John and yourself hold your faith, knowing we are mere animals on a small blue ball that is hard to imagine being significant in the vastness of the universe which science keeps uncovering with God?
Don’t worry – this feeling is very common. CS Lewis is very good on it in The Screwtape Letters – if you haven’t read them then you are in for a treat, and if not try and find the bit about “the law of undulation”.
We are, of course, animals, but we are not mere animals. God has made us in His image and given us the unique responsibility and privilege of becoming His sons and daughters. It is precisely faith in God that makes it possible for us to be more than mere animals.
As for the size of the earth – so what? The universe is vastly bigger than the earth and whether it is 10^10 times bigger or 10^20 or 10^200 makes no difference at all. Even in Genesis it was believed that there were about as many stars as there are grains of sand on the earth. God is infinite, we are finite. But we are joined to him by his infinite love – whether we feel it at the moment or not.
Thank you very much to your reply, I really appreciate your time. I never thought of it like that, but what do you think of Steven Hawking's book The Grand Design, is it really possible for the laws of physics alone to create matter and energy and the entire universe?
NO. Clearly equations can’t create the universe. There must be something/someone that “breathes fire into the equations” and causes it to be that case that these equations apply to the real world, and not some other set of equations.

I want to 'relate' to God rather than just seeing Him as an abstract 'good' that I have to force myself to desire by knowing I will desire Him when I see Him. I know I desire an unexplainable, unimaginable thing yet it is brought about via interests I have within this world. Indeed, if those interests have nothing to do with the ultimate goal or ultimate perfection, it makes me feel the same way about the arts and sciences as I did about mankind as an atheist...that all is met in death and therefore all is a fleeting thing, forgotten and not even allowed to make a lasting mark. A waste. They are lovely but pointless in the same way as a true love would be if you never could manage to meet her and bring about the satisfaction of marriage.

To be utterly honest, when I read the words of famous writers like Jonathan Edwards talking about how beatification is perfect and joy, as a word, is but a low shadow of the reality of the enjoyment we will have...I feel suspicion. I feel nothing can be verified and the more I research the more it seems everything we say about Heaven is made up. The idea of eternal linear time is disturbing...and the object of my longing seems so undefinable (although it seems (to me) as though some of my loves may be distant reflections) that, on the whole, trying to pin point what I'm seeking is torturous!
... I believe it to be vital because it is a desperate search to find out what God is 'like'. Obviously, as He is infinite, we cannot know Him perfectly in this mortal world, however me must be able to relate to Him via our hopes/loves and desires (so long as they are not sinful). We must follow His words, no doubt, yet I also wish to love Him as well as serve Him...or, else, attempts all seems rather hollow and meaningless. Platonism has, through reading CS Lewis, given me a glimmer of an idea.

How widely is it thought everything in 'this World' reflects a greater reality where those things are perfect (in God)? That we might reach this perfection via beatification? And how widely do they take that claim; can a love of fiction reflect this higher reality? Can films? Can objects?

And if this reality (to be) is greater, to what degree would it be sensible to assume it (they) might be perfected? Are words, to quote Jonathan Edwards,like joy but "low shadows" of how great and perfectly satisfying the joy of the World to come is?

To use an example, I have often hoped (via reading CS Lewis's Platonism inspired writings) that my love for Norse Myth, Tolkien, 'Dr Who' and my nerdy interest in collecting figures based on that program's characters and monsters, might in fact be instigations of something. I feel, via such, as CS Lewis felt via fairy tales, a desire for something 'ineffible' and far mightier/joyful than we might know or guess- sehnsucht. Wordsworth felt a similar desire through nature...but how many Christians believe that these feelings are 'for something' that they reflect when, as some do say (and intelligent men within the Church say) it may well be that the only similarity between objects and enjoyments here and the World to come, is that both are enjoyable.
The only really reliable answer we have to “what is God like” is “God is like Jesus”.
If you look at the starcourse blog you’ll see I’ve recently finished “Tokens of Trust” by Rowan Williams.
He makes the excellent points that:

Ultimately Christians believe in eternal life not because they believe something about themselves as human...but because they believe something about God: that God is trustworthy.

When we have done our worst, God remains God - and remains committed to being our God...The resurrection displays God's triumphant love as still and for ever having the shape of Jesus

We do get intimations of God’s love and beauty in this world. And we know, intellectually, that God is perfect love and perfect beauty. But we can know more through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I just finished reading Quarks, Chaos and Christianity. Additionally, I just lost my wife after a four year battle with cancer. In reading Quarks, Chaos and Christianity I noted your thoughts that cancer is a part of the natural order that also produces evolution and is not created specifically by God, a position I find comforting and agree with. You went on to address the issue of suffering, but I felt your analysis was incomplete and am looking to hear your reaction to an additional insight below.

After her cancer diagnosis my wife had trouble sleeping, the word cancer has much power, and it was keeping her awake. She told me that during the night a bright light shown in the back of her eyes and a male voice she had never heard before said "I'm here". Immediately she was able to relax and sleep. She told everyone she knew that God had spoken to her and it gave her great peace. Initially we took the message to mean that everything was going to turn out ok and that the cancer was going to be defeated. But I have come to understand in the time since her death that the message meant something entirely different. During my wife's four year journey with cancer there were many, many seemingly ordinary people who went out of their way to provide food and comfort for her and to our family. The people of our church, her fellow teachers, relatives, neighbors all brought food to the house, visited with her, attended her funeral, and are watching over myself and our daughters. All these seemingly ordinary people have angle [but I think he means "angel" NB] wings under their clothes. For I have come to understand that without suffering there would be no need for angles. If we were all healthy and happy, there would be no need for angles. Yes, suffering is part of the natural order of things, there is a time to celebrate and a time to be sad. But during the time of sadness we are never alone. We are surrounded by seemingly ordinary people with angle wings under their seemingly ordinary clothing. We ourselves also have wings if we acknowledge their presence and choose to unfold them. All these angles are gifts from a loving God who is always with us, who understands the joy and sadness of our journey because He walked it in the person of Jesus, and who sends His angles in our time of need.

This is my additional insight. I know it is not exactly a question, but would love to hear your reaction to this additional insight into suffering.John's reply: Thank you for the moving story about your wife. I am sure that here are many angles on what is happening. When we pray for healing, it may come though physical recovery of through the reconciled acceptance of what is happening.

Do you often find yourself as a solitary traveller on the road of motivated belief with few around you who even begin to comprehend what you are saying? Even worse, I suspect you may even find a degree of amused tolerance.
I have found this to be true for myself. Generally speaking, there is a tendency on the part of both materialistic scientists and fideistic believers to be intolerant of anyone who challenges their modus operandi/vivendi. Perhaps, this is unavoidable.
One final question. Have you read much of Schillebeeckx?
I find his description of God as "always new, but ever the same" to be quite enlightening. Fr. Schillebecckx was fond of describing God as an evervescent, boiling spring. This reminds me very much of Meister Eckhart who used the latin term "bullatio" to describe God's "boiling" creative nature. Eckhart used the term "ebullatio" to describe the effect that this "boiling" had on the sincerely seeking human soul.
I think there remains considerable room for new work on the theology of the Divine Nature and its relationship to the human soul. It is also true that even when we exhaust the written guidance of scared scripture, we are still free to engage in philosophical speculation in areas in a manner that, at least, does not contradict scripture. A prime example of this might be C.S. Lewis' expressed personal opinion on the souls of our departed pets and their place in Heaven. Reply form John: Not really. There is a more open atmosphere in the UK.
I have read a little Schillebeeckx?

I am a student (I'm 16), and I was reading up on very interesting idea that you had regarding God's interaction with the world, namely that God affects the information way out on the edge of the universe which results in a holistic projection. But I'm curious as to how God interacts with said information?
God interacts with the universe everywhere. The Christian doctrine of Creation is not that God created the universe and then walked away, but that God creates and sustains the universe. It’s a bit like the sense in which the electric current creates the light in a light bulb – another term that is sometimes used is “breathing fire into the equations”.
But of course unlike us God sees the whole of creation in a holistic way, and his interaction with creation is holistic. That is where the hologram analogy comes in.
Exactly how God interacts with creation we don’t understand - how could we? We don’t even really understand how we interact with creation.

While not a scientist, let alone a theoretical physicist, I have been intrigued by some of the wisps of knowledge that I have picked up regarding quantum mechanics and extensions of this to other areas – such as those made in the Quantum Theology book.
Working in areas related to educational philosophy and theology, and with a little background in sociology/anthropology, it occurred to me that there was more to issues such as superposition than merely those applying to subatomic particles. Indeed, recently there have been articles about the quantum effects relating to physical objects larger than individual subatomics. One idea that came to mind recently while teaching a course on Biblical Theology in education was that the doctrinal differences that define denominations, churches and even individuals, may arise from structuralist binaries that have become so much a part of our thinking – flowing from modernism/empiricism but with roots extending back to Aristotle. Perhaps these have been developed by humans, along with other methods such as recourse to Platonic forms, reference to "mystery", etc., as a way to deal conceptually with phenomena that were inexplicable in reductionist Newtonian terms.
The concept of superposition then struck me as a different solution. In theological terms one may ask, are strongly held perspectives on "opposing" doctrines (such as predestination and free will, etc., etc.) actually observer effect points on a superposition continuum? The relevance of this was driven home to me recently when one of my students asked if I thought her mother, a Christian who had died a couple of months ago, was in Heaven or "sleeping" until the Parousia. My response was simply, yes. And that is the approach I have taken personally since my wife's death 10s months ago. It does not "work" in terms of modernist rationalism but I am feeling more and more comfortable with a quantum perspective.
If the superposition of doctrines were a reality then that would beg the question as to other fields of human existence – in sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc.
While living with the paradoxes is obviously something we have been trained to resist, it seems to me that there is a wonderful freedom to be found if we can break free of the restraints of binary-ism – and this is something at which some cultures appear to be more adept than others.
Quantum superposition is certainly an interesting metaphor for many things, and a useful antidote to people who are too certain about their own particular perspective. But it’s worth remembering that in physics it has a very rigorous underpinning. Somehow we have to get the balance right in our thinking between openness to other perspectives and a complete relativism.

Since stars and even galaxies have a life cycle, what can eternal life mean? Does "the new heavens and earth" mean all the laws of physics are eternally altered?
Eternal life means perfect loving union with God. God has no life cycle.

I would like to ask what does Prof. Polkinghorne mean by God as a sustainer? Is it something like for example holding a ball with my hand in the air ( God sustaining existence of universe ) and if i left the ball it will collapse to the ground ( universe fall to nothingness ) ? P.S that was an analogy
I little bit.
Another analogy might be the way a cinema projector and screen both create and sustain the image.

About Me

I'm webmaster of starcourse.org and polkinghorne.net.
IRL I'm a social philosopher/ strategy consultant, have 3 children and 5 grandchildren. Much of my thought on science and religion is outlined in my 2009 book "Questions of Truth" with John Polkinghorne.